4 hours ago, Vipercrunch said:

Draper should have got 1 week.  - "WE WILL NOT TOLERATE PUNCHING - NOT A GOOD LOOK"

Rioli should have 2 weeks. - "WE WILL PROTECT THE HEAD.  IF YOU JUMP OFF THE GROUND WE WILL NOT TOLERATE IT"

Mitch Robinson should have been cleared. "???"

The Sloane one, I'm comfortable with a fine I think. "FACE AND EYES WILL BE PROTECTED"

What a horrible way to start the year for the AFL and tribunal.  -  GREAT SUMMATION OF THE HYPOCRISY OF THE AFL / MRP / TRIBUNAL

 

 

 

Draper should have got 1 week.  - "WE WILL NOT TOLERATE PUNCHING - NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR THE GAME"

Rioli should have 2 weeks. - "WE WILL PROTECT THE HEAD.  IF YOU JUMP OFF THE GROUND WE WILL NOT TOLERATE IT"

Mitch Robinson should have been cleared. "???"

The Sloane one, I'm comfortable with a fine I think. "FACE AND EYES WILL BE PROTECTED"

What a horrible way to start the year for the AFL and tribunal.  -  GREAT SUMMATION OF THE HYPOCRISY OF THE AFL / MRP / TRIBUNAL

...as I said before these buggers have to be removed because they are so entrenched with the old f£¥T's club handing on jobs to next in line. Cue Biggest Brown noses.

19 hours ago, Docs Demons said:

It's a complete joke. what is Robinson meant to do. Get out of the way and be branded a squib or brace for the bump. He could have kept moving and made it worse. This game is going from bad to worse. Soon Basketball will be a tougher game. Absolute stupidity from the AFL. Oh for the good old days!.

The guy had no time at all to sum up the situation or make a conscious choice to take action.

He did not perform an aggressive act ... "oh look, here's an opportunity to send this guy into next week" ... he just stood there basically.

There is a difference between choosing to bump someone -- taking the risk that your bump will inflict damage -- and standing there while some bloke runs into you. Yes, he didn't mean to run into him. Nor did Robinson mean to harm the Port guy. But the AFL have to accept that in a contact sport, sometimes players get hurt in spite of everyone's intent.

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by Mazer Rackham

9 hours ago, DubDee said:

The tribunal reasoning for Rioli getting off seems to be:

"but you know, that Riewoldt mark? that's a reason right?"

"Oh, Riewoldt? Great player." "Yeah, great player." "Did you ever play against him?" "Yeah, tore me new one. Great guy, but." "Me too." "Yeah, great guy." "You can't penalise Riewoldt." "Nah, he doesn't deserve it." "I remember he kicked 6 against us one day. What a player." "Yeah, he took a mark like that against us once. So gutsy. You can't penalise guys like him." "Penalise Riewoldt? No way." "I call for a vote." "Not guilty." "Not guilty. "Not guilty." "It's unanimous. Riewoldt not guilty. Send out the press release."

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

"We should appeal to send a message but that might set a precedent. As you know, in tribunal matters, no f*ck3r around here knows what precedent even is."

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by Mazer Rackham

35 minutes ago, monoccular said:

What a horrible way to start the year for the AFL and tribunal.  -  GREAT SUMMATION OF THE HYPOCRISY OF THE AFL / MRP / TRIBUNAL

Business as usual I'm afraid. They just got out of the blocks early instead of keeping us in suspense.

17 hours ago, willmoy said:

If I was this bloke's family I would seriously turn up at some blockheads front door and say we want this fixed or else.

I wish to put on the record that I am not a blockhead.

10 hours ago, Pates said:

There must be a similar precedent set where if you choose to leave the ground in a dangerous manor and no longer show duty of care to your fellow player than you must be sanctioned. 

Tehehehe

1 hour ago, willmoy said:

Cue Biggest Brown noses.

Which one do you reckon is the biggest?

               

10 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I’ ve forgotten….   was it Rioli or L Jetta that mocked Gawn after Liam Ryan took that hanger in Perth?

Wasn't that Nathan Vardy?

If Rioli was attempting a mark where are his arms and why aren't they pointed towards the ball?  Players are coached to have their arms outstreched (to mark) to stop the spoil from behind

So I don't buy the chest mark attempt ... others can disagree of course.  Seems a bit too convenient in my view

So what happens next time if they use the Rioli incident as the precedent?  4-6 weeks? Off? Who would know?

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by Macca

15 minutes ago, Macca said:

So what happens next time if they use the Rioli incident as the precedent?

Precedent? The AFL doesn't know the meaning of the word. Next week some player doing exactly what Rioli did will get 6 weeks and the week after someone doing what Robinson did will not be cited and his opponent will.

10 hours ago, tiers said:

Three cases. Three errant decisions. And sadly, our Neita is on the panel.

The AFL must appeal to overturn each decision or the rules will mean nothing and there will be no precedents.

Can you believe using a Reiwoldt mark as a defence and Sloane using his own former eye problems as a defence? Ludricous reasoning by all concerned.

Robinson was standing still and was hit by a head. Is there not a duty of care owed by the owner of the head to the player?

Much as I dislike Robinson, he was hung out to dry …… basically he stood still, braced and was head butted.  I see to recall something similar happening to May a few years ago.  Bizarre decision. 

What is the random "rule" or "interpretation" when going for a mark the umpire deems an unreasonable attempt.... looked pretty unreasonable and [censored] Gil on The Front Bar. 

So its an unreasonable attempt coming from behind and trying to take a hanger but coming front on and smashing a player, yet you got nowhere near the ball is A-OK..... ppfftt

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by Cards13
added words

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Precedent? The AFL doesn't know the meaning of the word

The AFL doesn't seem to care, so will anything change?

As previously stated, the next time we see a very similar incident might bring a 4-6 week suspension, or the player gets off, or anything in between ... but who would know?  

The MRO (or the equivalent body) has been making these sorts of decisions for decades.  It's not 'new' news ... just more of the same

And I'm looking at the Rioli incident in isolation ... the Mitch Robinson incident can be looked at as similar but in reality, the 2 incidents are poles apart

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by Macca

The MRP needs to be disbanded. Only round one and 3 cases already. Due to its leniency it will be swamped every round. 

3 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The guy had no time at all to sum up the situation or make a conscious choice to take action.

He did not perform an aggressive act ... "oh look, here's an opportunity to send this guy into next week" ... he just stood there basically.

There is a difference between choosing to bump someone -- taking the risk that your bump will inflict damage -- and standing there while some bloke runs into you. Yes, he didn't mean to run into him. Nor did Robinson mean to harm the Port guy. But the AFL have to accept that in a contact sport, sometimes players get hurt in spite of everyone's intent.

Robinson 8 years ago would have run straight through the other guy, amazing he is now getting time off for standing around.

.

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by Macca

4 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Business as usual I'm afraid

It's been going on for decades but penalties used to be a lot more straightforward than they are now

If one of our players is up on report then cross your fingers and hope for the best

"Just tell 'em you were going for the mark" seems a good ploy

Edited March 23, 20223 yr by Macca

Even the MRO is going soft on the Bulldogs?

On the Blakey hit, the MRO said:  “English gets to a stationary position before turning his body and making contact with player Blakey. It was determined by the MRO that English’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.“

round-three-match-review-panel

Take a look at the video in that article.  To my eye English steadies for half a second, pivots on his left foot, leaving the ground then tunnels his right shoulder Blakey as he turns wd.  Hits Blakey's head.  I would think there would be a bit of force behind the shoulder while pivoting.  Huge potential to cause damage.

English also chose not to tackle when that option was clearly available to him.

I don't know what or if there should of been a penalty.  But. the MRO's explanation of English being stationery and ignoring the risks, both make a mockery of the review system and eliminating head high contact.

Some other poor soul will get a fine or suspension for the same thing and the MRO will make up some other explanation...

Edited April 3, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

So English gets off coz he was stationary but Robinson gets a week??

far out 

Pendlebury:  “Is there a fine for staging?”  when Danger gets a free and a 5om penalty to kick a goal.

The whistleblower replied: “I’ll leave upstairs to worry about that on Monday mate.”

Video herein:  scott-pendlebury-asks-umpire-if-theres-a-fine-for-staging-patrick-dangerfield-free-kick

Can't see the MRO calling Danger out on the dive.

1 minute ago, DubDee said:

So English gets off coz he was stationary but Robinson gets a week??

far out 

Do you think English was stationery, DD?

3 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Even the MRO is going soft on the Bulldogs?

On the Blakey hit, the MRO said:  “English gets to a stationary position before turning his body and making contact with player Blakey. It was determined by the MRO that English’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.“

round-three-match-review-panel

Take a look at the video in that article.  To my eye English steadies for half a second, pivots on his left foot, leaving the ground then tunnels his right shoulder Blakey as he turns wd.  Hits Blakey's head.  I would think there would be a bit of force behind the shoulder while pivoting.  Huge potential to cause damage.

I don't know what or if there should of been a penalty.  But. the MRO's explanation of English being stationery and ignoring the risks, both make a mockery of the review system and eliminating head high contact.

Some other poor soul will get a fine or suspension for the same thing and the MRO will make up some other explanation...

AFL is like cigarette companies saying smoking not related to cancer!

They don’t want to spoil the look of the game, while saying we’re protecting the head. Unfortunately unless a player is injured AFL really try ignore any action, unless by players not liked - Toby, Mitch etc.

Then you have protected species in Dangerfield, Selwood & Hawkins who can do whatever they want, Hawkins broke May's jaw, could have broken Oliver’s neck, but Cats given free reign.

9 minutes ago, DubDee said:

So English gets off coz he was stationary but Robinson gets a week??

far out 

Not at all. Quoting the BS MRO statement